>>291790
>but according to radical feminism, men can't be raped
Under US law, a woman can put a gun to your head, force you to chew handful of viagra, mount your chemically-induced erection while still threatening your life, and she's only committing sexual assault.
Rape is defined as penetration, and so she only becomes a rapist if she sticks a finger up your ass to stimulate your prostate.
That shit ain't "radical feminism," it's the law as laid out by mainstream feminist lobbying over the past forty years.
Also, because you can't penetrate a mouth with a vagina, a man forcing someone to perform oral on them is rape, but a woman doing similarly is not.
>>291792
>I'm guessing that to them, men can only be raped if they believe in the right politics.
What? No. Men can only be raped by OTHER MEN. It's only permissable to acknowledge men as victims if it also supports the narrative of men as aggressors.
If you use a more egalitarian definition of rape, or include "forced to penetrate" as a rape criterion, you realize rape isn't a gendered issue, either by victim or aggressor.
>>293456
I was around for at least two of those threads designing Viv, I did not see any mention of piccolodick. Similar to other anon, I first heard that "green and purple" are 4chan colours from SJWs/feminists, and that they symbolize rape. It was completely out of left field.
So count me also a moron.
>>291592
10/10 would be stuffed under submerged roots to become waterlogged and softened for loligator teef